|
OrdinaryMeeting Notice and Agenda
An Ordinary Meeting of the Bega Valley Shire Council will be held at Council Chambers, Bega on Wednesday, 7 June 2017 commencing at 2.00 pm to consider and resolve on the matters set out in the attached Agenda.
1 June 2017
|
Council meetings are recorded and live streamed to the Internet for public viewing. By entering the Chambers during an open session of Council, you consent to your attendance and participation being recorded.
The recording will be archived and made available on Council’s website www.begavalley.nsw.gov.au. All care is taken to maintain your privacy; however as a visitor of the public gallery, your presence may be recorded.
The Agendas for Council Meetings and Council Reports for each meeting are available from 5.00 pm one week prior to each Ordinary Meeting, on Council’s website. A hard copy is also made available to each Library Branch and at the Bega Administration Building reception desk.
The Minutes of Committee and Council Meetings are available from 5.00pm on Council's Web Site on the Friday after the Meeting on Councils website and hard copies distributed with the Agenda for the following meeting.
1. Please be aware that the recommendations in the Council Meeting Agenda are recommendations to the Council for consideration. They are not the resolutions (decisions) of Council.
2. Background for reports is provided by staff to the General Manager for presentation to Council.
3. The Council may adopt these recommendations, amend the recommendations, determine a completely different course of action, or it may decline to pursue any course of action.
4. The decision of the Council becomes the resolution of the Council, and is recorded in the Minutes of that meeting.
5. The Minutes of each Council meeting are published in draft format, and are confirmed, with amendments by Councillors if necessary, at the next available Council Meeting.
If you require any further information or clarification regarding a report to Counci, please contact Council’s Executive Assistant who can provide you with the appropriate contact details
Phone (6499 2104) or email execassist@begavalley.nsw.gov.au.
· Is the decision or conduct legal?
· Is it consistent with Government policy, Council’s objectives and Code of Conduct?
· What will the outcome be for you, your colleagues, the Council, anyone else?
· Does it raise a conflict of interest?
· Do you stand to gain personally at public expense?
· Can the decision be justified in terms of public interest?
· Would it withstand public scrutiny?
A conflict of interest is a clash between private interest and public duty. There are two types of conflict:
· Pecuniary – regulated by the Local Government Act 1993 and Office of Local Government
· Non-pecuniary – regulated by Codes of Conduct and policy. ICAC, Ombudsman, Office of Local Government (advice only). If declaring a Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest, Councillors can choose to either disclose and vote, disclose and not vote or leave the Chamber.
· Is it likely I could be influenced by personal interest in carrying out my public duty?
· Would a fair and reasonable person believe I could be so influenced?
· Conflict of interest is closely tied to the layperson’s definition of ‘corruption’ – using public office for private gain.
· Important to consider public perceptions of whether you have a conflict of interest.
1st Do I have private interests affected by a matter I am officially involved in?
2nd Is my official role one of influence or perceived influence over the matter?
3rd Do my private interests conflict with my official role?
For more detailed definitions refer to Sections 442, 448 and 459 or the Local Government Act 1993 and Model Code of Conduct, Part 4 – conflictions of interest.
Whilst seeking advice is generally useful, the ultimate decision rests with the person concerned.Officers of the following agencies are available during office hours to discuss the obligations placed on Councillors, officers and community committee members by various pieces of legislation, regulation and codes.
|
Contact |
Phone |
|
Website |
|
Bega Valley Shire Council |
(02) 6499 2222 |
council@begavalley.nsw.gov.au |
www.begavalley.nsw.gov.au |
|
ICAC |
8281 5999 Toll Free 1800 463 909 |
icac@icac.nsw.gov.au |
www.icac.nsw.gov.au |
|
Office of Local Government |
(02) 4428 4100 |
olg@olg.nsw.gov.au |
http://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/ |
|
NSW Ombudsman |
(02) 8286 1000 Toll Free 1800 451 524 |
nswombo@ombo.nsw.gov.au |
Under the provisions of Section 451(1) of the Local Government Act 1993 (pecuniary interests) and Part 4 of the Model Code of Conduct prescribed by the Local Government (Discipline) Regulation (conflict of interests) it is necessary for you to disclose the nature of the interest when making a disclosure of a pecuniary interest or a non-pecuniary conflict of interest at a meeting.
The following form should be completed and handed to the General Manager as soon as practible once the interest is identified. Declarations are made at Item 3 of the Agenda: Declarations - Pecuniary, Non-Pecuniary and Political Donation Disclosures, and prior to each Item being discussed:
Council meeting held on __________(day) / ___________(month) /____________(year)
|
Item no & subject |
|
|
Pecuniary Interest
|
In my opinion, my interest is pecuniary and I am therefore required to take the action specified in section 451(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 and or any other action required by the Chief Executive Officer. |
|
Significant Non-pecuniary conflict of interest |
– In my opinion, my interest is non-pecuniary but significant. I am unable to remove the source of conflict. I am therefore required to treat the interest as if it were pecuniary and take the action specified in section 451(2) of the Local Government Act 1993. |
|
Non-pecuniary conflict of interest |
In my opinion, my interest is non-pecuniary and less than significant. I therefore make this declaration as I am required to do pursuant to clause 4.17 of Council’s Code of Conduct. However, I intend to continue to be involved with the matter. |
|
Nature of interest |
Be specific and include information such as : · The names of any person or organization with which you have a relationship · The nature of your relationship with the person or organization · The reason(s) why you consider the situation may (or may be perceived to) give rise to a conflict between your personal interests and your public duty as a Councillor. |
|
If Pecuniary |
Leave chamber |
|
If Non-pecuniary (tick one) |
Disclose & vote Disclose & not vote Leave chamber |
|
Reason for action proposed |
Clause 4.17 of Council’s Code of Conduct provides that if you determine that a non-pecuniary conflict of interest is less than significant and does not require further action, you must provide an explanation of why you consider that conflict does not require further action in the circumstances |
|
Print Name |
I disclose the above interest and acknowledge that I will take appropriate action as I have indicated above. |
|
Signed |
|
NB: Please complete a separate form for each Item on the Council Agenda on which you are declaring an interest.
|
Council |
7 June 2017 |
That the apology from Cr Tapscott be accepted for her inability to attend the meeting and leave of absence be granted .
Recommendation
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting and Closed session held on 17 May 2017 as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.
Pecuniary, Non-Pecuniary and Political Donation Disclosures to be declared and tabled. Declarations also to be prior to discussion on each item.
That the Ordinary meeting of the Council be adjourned for the purpose of dealing with staff reports to Standing Committees.
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Seckold.
9.1 Detached dual occupancy and strata subdivision, 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula ............ 9
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice , this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Griff.
10.1 Mumbulla Foundation Memorandum of Understanding ........................................................ 48
10.2 Memorandum of Understanding with South East Arts ............................................................ 59
10.3 Bruce Steer Pool Bermagui - Public Amenities Building.......................................................... 91
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Nadin.
Nil Reports
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Fitzpatrick.
12.1 Section 64 Contributions - Alternative Charging Mechanisms............................................. 100
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Tapscott.
13.1 Panel Delegates and Representatives - Chairperson Traffic Committee............................ 124
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Bain.
14.1 New South Wales Treasury (TCorp) Approval of Loan Facilities.......................................... 126
That all motions recorded in the Standing Committees, including votes for and against, and acknowledging declarations of interest already made, be adopted in by the Ordinary Council meeting.
16.1 Cr Seckold - ALGWA NSW Annual Conference 2017 .......................................................... 128
16.2 Statement by Councillor.............................................................................................................. 131
18.1 Alteration Motion Bermagui Spiire Masterplan...................................................................... 133
Council |
7 June 2017 |
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Seckold.
9.1 Detached dual occupancy and strata subdivision, 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula 9
|
Council 7 June 2017 |
Item 9.1 |
9.1. DA No. 2016.293: Detached dual occupancy and strata subdivision, 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula
Director Planning and Environment
|
Applicant |
Salvestro Developments c/- Dabyne Planning Pty Ltd |
|
Owner |
Kirsty Cleverley |
|
Site |
Lot 172 DP 1189258, 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula |
|
Zone |
R3 Medium Density |
|
Site area |
1,364m² |
|
Proposed development |
Detached Dual Occupancy and Strata Subdivision |
In accordance with the Council Resolution of 15 March 2017 Councillors have inspected the site and the applicant has provided additional information which has been assessed by Council officers.
The application is recommended for refusal.
Council, at its meeting of 15 March 2017, considered Development Application (DA) 2016.293 for the erection of a detached dual occupancy at 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula.
The Council officer recommendation was;
1. That the Development Application 2016.293 for the erection of a detached dual occupancy and carport on Lot 172 DP 1189258, 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula be refused for the following reasons:
a. The development is inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 3.2.2.3 of the Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 in terms of maintaining adequate solar access to principle private open space areas of the adjoining residence.
b. The development is inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 3.2.2.1 of the Bega Valley Development Control Plan 2013 as the development design does not affordable adequate and reasonable privacy to the adjoining residence.
2. That those persons who made submissions be advised of Council’s decision.
Council considered a deputation from Ms Nicole Uren, owner of 5 Salmon Court, Merimbula. The Director Planning and Environment, having considered the address, advised the Council the Council officer report had suitably dealt with all relevant issues raised during the deputation, however noted that Councillors may wish to defer consideration of the matter to undertake a site inspection.
Council resolved as follows;
That the matter be deferred for a site inspection by Councillors and suitable staff and the matter be further reported to Council.
In favour: Crs Nadin, Griff, McBain, Seckold, Tapscott and Dodds
Against: Crs Fitzpatrick and Allen
Absent: Cr Bain
A site inspection was held on the 28 March 2017 with the opportunity for a redesign of the roofline to reduce solar access impact on the adjoining property being raised.
An email was sent to the applicant on the 6 April 2017 requesting comment on the possibility of a redesign of the roofline. The applicant provided revised plans on 1 May 2017, detailing a reduction to the roof line for both units (See Attachment 1 – revised development plans) and provided additional comments in support of the DA (See Attachment 2 – letter dated 1 May 2017).
Council officers have assessed the revised plans and maintain the previous recommendations that the development would have adverse and unacceptable impacts on an adjoining property and as such conclude the development should be refused.
The revised DA plans currently before Council seek approval for the erection of a detached dual occupancy. Both dwellings are similar in design, being two storeys, with similar layouts, facades, roof lines and comprising 4 bedrooms each. At the rear of the site a separate two space carport is proposed.
The site will require additional cut and fill to cater for the development and the buildings would be strata subdivided upon completion.
The site is described as Lot 172 DP 1189258 and is located at 43 Lakewood Drive, Merimbula approximately 1.4 kilometres west of the Merimbula town centre. The allotment is 1,364m² in area, battle-axe in shape, with access via a 3 metre wide concrete driveway off Lakewood Drive (See Attachment 3 – Locality Plan).
The land is undulating in topography, with the land modified from previous cut and fill, and includes a timber retaining wall located along the southern boundary. The rear of the lot slopes up and retains three large trees and some undergrowth.
A Council maintained drainage reserve runs along the south eastern boundary of the site. The site is located within an established residential area, and is surrounded by allotments which accommodate single dwellings that are either single or two storey in design, placed on allotments ranging in area from 836m² through to 1,260m². The existing character of the area is regarded as low density.
The proposal, including the revised plans, has been assessed in accordance with the Matters for Consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. A copy of the assessing officer's Section 79C assessment will be available at the meeting.
The land is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and Detached Dual Occupancy developments are permissible in the zone subject to Development Consent.
The objectives of the R3 zone are as follows:
• To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.
• To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.
• To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.
In assessing the DA, Council officers concluded the development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.
The Council report of the 15 March 2017 identified differences in the assessment of what the applicant considers as the Private Open Space for 5 Salmon Court to what Council’s assessing officer has considered. The applicant maintains the front balcony at 5 Salmon Court is the Principle Private Open Space as it gains access directly from the main living areas of the dwelling and would not be overshadowed by the proposed development.
Under Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013, the provision of Private Open Space specifies “Each dwelling at ground level must provide a minimum area of 50m² with a minimum dimension of no less than 2.5m. For developments with 2 or more dwellings entirely above ground level, each occupancy entirely above ground level, must contain a balcony with a minimum area of 15m² and dimension of no less than 2.5m.”
Council’s assessing officer has identified the balcony at 5 Salmon Court is not the Principle Private Open Space as it does not meet the minimum dimensions specified in DCP 2013. The majority of the balcony has a dimension width of less than 2.5 metres, namely 2 metres wide. There is a small 10m² area adjacent to the front steps that does meet the minimum dimension of not less than 2.5m, however this area is well below the minimum area identified under DCP 2013 of 50m². The assessing officer has also discounted the balcony for private open space due to the fact that during the winter period, it would be significantly impacted upon by the shadowing effect of the dwelling itself.
The existing Private Open Space area located to the east of the dwelling is located at ground level, contains a paved area and totals an area calculated at 50m² with all dimensions greater than 2.5 metres. This is consistent with the provisions of private open space requirements detailed under BVDCP 2013. The applicant has also identified this site for the purpose of shadow calculation (although the applicant’s calculated area is only 45m²).
Council’s assessing officer has undertaken an assessment of the revised plans to determine the impact of overshadowing on the private open space area. This assessment was based on the information provided by the applicant as part of the DA and revised plans. Council officers are of the opinion that, while the revised plans would result in a reduction in the impact of overshadowing, the design would still result in the private open space area being impacted for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9am to 3pm on 21 June and is therefore not consistent with the provisions of the DCP.
Council officers have requested clarification of the shadow length difference on the applicant’s plans between the existing fence and proposed building with no response received to date.
Council's assessing officer agrees with the applicant that the identified private open space would be overshadowed by the existing dwelling on 5 Salmon Court after 12 midday. This has identified the importance of maintaining solar access to the private open space east of the dwelling at 5 Salmon Court from 9am through to 12 noon.
Calculations on the extent of the shadowing effect by a 1.8 metre high fence along the boundary between the subject site and 5 Salmon Court, detail there would only be overshadowing on the Private Open Space before 9.15am and after 3pm. Council officers do not concur with the statements provided by the applicant that a future boundary fence would further reduce the shadow impact proposed by the development on the identified private open space.
Council officer’s comments as reported to Council on the 15 March 2017 remain valid in that the impact of existing trees were considered in analysing existing site conditions and their effect of overshadowing is not considered significant and should be discounted in the impact of overshadowing on 5 Salmon Court. This is consistent with the Planning Principles of the Land and Environment Court.
Based on the assessment of the application, the revised plans and information submitted by the applicant on the 1 May 2007, the revised roof line would only provide for a minor reduction to the shadow impacts on the private open space at 5 Salmon Court. It is still considered the private open space area of 5 Salmon Court would be overshadowed for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9am and 3pm on June 21 and therefore is not consistent with the provisions of BVDCP 2013.
Council officers have consistently applied the provisions for new and existing residential developments to ensure they are not overshadowed for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9am and 3pm on June 21.
The DA was reported to Council on the 15 March 2017. The matter was deferred and an on-site inspection was held with Councillors. The applicant provided amended plans, indicating a minor change to the roof design. Council officers are recommending refusal of the DA due to the adverse impact the proposal would have through the overshadowing and loss of privacy for the residence located at 5 Salmon Court.
1. Attachment 1 - Revised Development Plans
2. Attachment 2 - Letter from Applicant
3. Attachment 3 - Locality Plan
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Griff.
10.1 Mumbulla Foundation Memorandum of Understanding ................................... 48
10.2 Memorandum of Understanding with South East Arts ...................................... 59
10.3 Bruce Steer Pool Bermagui - Public Amenities Building.................................... 91
|
Council 7 June 2017 |
Item 10.1 |
A revised Memorandum of Understanding with the Mumbulla Foundation is presented for Council's consideration.
Director Community, Relations and Leisure
The Mumbulla Foundation was launched in November 2000 with the motto Give where you Live. It was the first truly regional philanthropic Foundation in Australia. In 2001 the Foundation and Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to support the establishment of a community grants program (CGP). The MOU was regarded as a benchmark by other emerging Foundations. Over the years it has allowed the Foundation to leverage funding from a range of other sources and continue to grow their philanthropic work in the Shire.
In its 16 years of operation, the small grants program has distributed over $1 million in grant funding to over 200 organisations in the Bega Valley Shire. Projects funded directly address a range of issues identified in Council’s strategic documents. These include valuable services for older people, people with a disability, young people, families and children, and people in need. Grants have also fostered arts and cultural activities, promoted education and life-long learning and supported groups concerned with heritage and the environment.
The current MOU was endorsed by Council in July 2014 and is due to expire in July 2017. In consultation with the Foundation, the MOU has been reviewed to ensure levels of accountability are maintained and both parties are satisfied with the direction and focus of the grants program, particularly as it relates to issues identified in Council’s strategic documents.
Council’s contribution was originally $25,000 for the CGP and $5,000 for administrative costs. In 2016 Council bolstered its contribution to the CGP by $10,000 from the Southern Phones annual dividend. The revised MOU proposes to maintain this level of funding dependent on the availability of the Southern Phones dividend. ($35,000 for the CGP plus $5,000 administration costs)
Under the MOU the Foundation will match Council’s contribution from other sources. In recent years, the Foundation’s contribution has exceeded Council funding.
The revised MOU is presented to Council for endorsement.
The MOU formalises the relationship between Council and the Mumbulla Foundation. The agreement promotes transparency and accountability for both parties, providing a framework that supports the effective governance of the small grants program.
The MOU covers the period to July 2021, which will provide the incoming Council in 2020 an opportunity to review the MOU in line with its term.
The MOU contributes socially and culturally to a number of key strategic directions set by Council.
L1.5.1.1 Deliver work with community members, groups and organisations to build wellbeing, and
L2.8.1.1 Work with community organisations to support and promote community and cultural activities in the Shire.
The relationship under the MOU with the Mumbulla Foundation forms part of the work of the Community Development and Place Based Officers annual work plans.
The MOU is a positive way to foster and recognise the contribution of the Mumbulla Foundation and its donors and to promote and support community organisations across the Shire. The CGP provides a much needed boost to local groups who are working directly on projects which benefit local communities throughout the Shire. The grants encourage community participation and build the capacity of local groups. Each funded project supports positive outcomes for both the providers (most of whom are community volunteers) and the project recipients.
Council officers work closely with the Mumbulla Foundation to advertise the CGP grants. These are widely promoted by Place Based Officers, through social media channels, print media, community networks, and on the Mumbulla Foundation and Council websites.
In 2016, Place Based Officers worked alongside Mumbulla Foundation representatives to run four (4) grant writing workshops (held in Bermagui, Bega, Tura and Eden) for potential applicants. Over 30 groups attended these workshops. Place Based Officers also directly assist applicants with their submissions if they need advice.
All successful applicants are invited to attend a presentation event in early December. These celebrations demonstrate the diversity of worthwhile projects funded through the CGP. They have traditionally been very well attended by recipients, their friends and supporters and receive local media attention.
The MOU allows for Council to determine its annual contribution as part of the normal budget process.
|
Funding source |
|
Amount |
|
Mumbulla Foundation |
$ |
40,000 |
The MOU supports the effective administration of the CGP, reducing any potential reputational or financial risk to Council.
The MOU with the Mumbulla Foundation enables Council to support a range of community activities which promote wellbeing across the Shire. Matching contributions from the Mumbulla Foundation support program efficiencies which could not be achieved by Council alone.
The revised MOU is presented to Council for endorsement.
1. Draft MOU Mumbulla Foundation 2017-2021
|
Item 10.2 |
10.2. Memorandum of Understanding with South East Arts
A revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with South East Arts is presented for Council's consideration.
Director Community, Relations and Leisure
Background
South East Arts (SEA) is the regional arts development organisation covering the Bega Valley, Eurobodalla and Snowy Monaro local government areas. SEA actively supports the ongoing development of, and participation in, arts and culture throughout the NSW South East region.
Regional Arts Development Organisations provide strategic direction for sustainable arts and cultural development in their regions. Each Regional Arts Development Organisation employs staff members who coordinate and implement a regional arts and cultural development program across the contributing local government areas in their region. Regional Arts Development Organisations are a partnership with the local government bodies in each region.
South East Arts provides member Councils and their communities with expertise and assistance in cultural services and cultural development issues. The regional structure attracts a NSW Government subsidy thereby making the program more affordable to the participating Shires whilst engendering stronger regional co-ordination and co-operation and maximising available resources.
In 2016 SEA attracted $400, 000 in funding to the area and engaged more than 6800 people in performances, exhibitions and concerts across the region. A further 650 people were engaged in skills and creative development workshops. The SEA Annual Report for 2016 is attached.
In the Bega Valley, SEA was established as a partnership in 2001, under an MOU between the then five member Shires of Bega Valley, Bombala, Cooma-Monaro, Eurobodalla and Snowy River to provide an arts and cultural development program for the region.
Since that time member Councils have also nominated a Councillor delegate to take a position on the Board of SEA in line with their Constitution and the MOU. Council’s current representative is Cr Griff.
The MOU has been updated, following amalgamation of the high country Councils, and now incorporates the newly formed Snowy Monaro Shire along with Bega Valley and Eurobodalla. The revised MOU is now presented to Council for endorsement.
Issues
Legal /Policy
The intention of this MOU is to strengthen the current partnership between parties by implementing a formal level of cooperation between the regional Councils and South East Arts. This strategic partnership will achieve cooperative arrangements and establish a framework to deliver greater efficiencies and progress strategies for the parties and the communities they represent.
The signing of this MOU is not a formal undertaking. It implies the signatories will strive to reach the objectives stated in the MOU, to the best of their ability.
The MOU covers the period to September 2020, in line with the Local Government election cycle.
Strategic
The partnership with SEA contributes both economically and culturally to a number of key strategic directions set by Bega Valley Shire Council as part of the Community Strategic Plan, namely:
Direction L2 - Access to learning and creativity - We are an inspired community with expanded access to life-long learning and skill development, and have creativity and celebration integrated into our community life
Direction L3 - Demonstrates respect and inclusion - We are a harmonious community where everybody is welcomed, respected and diversity is celebrated
Direction E2 - Growing our region - Our region is strong and diverse, which attracts and provides new opportunities for both business and community.
Operational / Asset Management Plan
The relationship with SEA and partner Councils through this MOU forms part of the work of the Community, Culture and Information section of Council.
Social / Cultural
Arts and culture play a significant role in communities across our Shire. SEA plays an important role in this space and provides the communities of our region the opportunity to engage in cultural and artistic performances and programs along with providing a rich resource for practitioners relating to professional development opportunities that otherwise may not exist.
Financial and resource considerations
Council has made an annual contribution to SEA since 2001, originally as a combination of financial contribution and office accommodation for the organisation. Approximately four years ago SEA relocated to its own office space and since that time the contribution has been financial only.
The annual contribution to SEA has been in keeping with the recommendations of Regional Arts NSW which is based on a per capita amount. The recommended contributions for 2017/18 for Councils with a population of 30 000 to 40 000, is $24, 518 (see attachment A of the MOU).
The MOU allows for Council to determine its annual contribution as part of the normal budget process.
|
Funding source |
|
Amount |
|
Community Culture and Information 2017/18 |
$ |
25 000 |
Conclusion
The partnership through this MOU with SEA and other member Councils is an effective and affordable way to achieve outcomes for arts and culture in our region, beyond that which Bega Valley Shire Council could achieve independently. SEA is a professional arts organisation well placed to work with member Councils to achieve the aims of the MOU and deliver positive arts and culture outcomes for the Shire.
Attachments
1. MOU SEA and Councils 2017-2020
2. SEA Annual Report 2016
|
1. That Council endorses the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with South East Arts. 2. That Council authorises the Director Community Relations and Leisure as a signatory to the MOU. 3. That Council endorses an annual financial contribution to South East Arts for the term of the MOU subject to annual budget processes. |
|
Item 10.3 |
10.3. Bruce Steer Pool Bermagui - Public Amenities Building
This report is provided in response to a Council Resolution on the asset implications of retaining the current aging public amenities building near Bruce Steer Pool, Bermagui.
Director Community, Relations and Leisure
Background
At the Council meeting on 26 April 2017 Council considered the report 10.3 Revised Coastal Accessibility Plan. Council Resolved:
That the matter be deferred for further report to Council on full asset implications of matters raised in the deputation to Council as per Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.
Issues
Strategic
The Coastal Accessibility Plan identifies the current and future needs of the community and guides the development of recreational facilities at three locations, with a particular focus on improving accessibility for all. Importantly the planning process identifies opportunities that will add value to the site and allow for increased recreation opportunities and participation.
In relation to the proposed location of the amenities block at Bruce Steer Pool, Bermagui, the following is important to note:
· The proposed location is approximately 40m from the existing location.
· Those parking at the top of the embankment wishing to use Bruce Steer Pool or the boating facilities will walk past the proposed site.
· There are two other public toilets within 500m of this location.
Operational / Asset Management Plan
The delivery of the Coastal Access Plan links to the following ambitions and outcomes identified in the Bega Valley Community Strategic Plan 2030:
Community Ambition A2: Facilities and services: Our facilities and services are strategically planned, designed and maintained to meet the community needs.
Outcome Area A2.3: Safe and well maintained sporting fields, recreation areas and built facilities meet the cultural, recreational, tourism and community service needs of all ages and abilities in our community.
This type of planning links directly to asset renewal. It allows for consideration of changes in standards, needs and expectations since the current facilities were built.
The current amenities building is due for renewal as it is old, does not meet current standards and expectations, and does not present well. The proposal to retain it as a seasonal facility will not resolve these problems and will retain ongoing maintenance costs as well as asset implications relating to renewal and depreciation. Operating costs will be incurred dependant on the timeframe it is open, noting the higher costs are incurred during busier periods.
Council’s budget for public amenities operations and maintenance is $671k spent on the 63 public amenities buildings across the Shire. In terms of provision per capita this relates to three times the industry median (IPWEA ‘Yardstick Program’ 2016). This statistic demonstrates the challenge to Council. There are five Bega Valley Shire Council (BVSC) public toilets in Bermagui. The operations and maintenance costs for these five buildings for the 2016/17 year is expected to be $60k or an average of $12k per site, slightly above the Shire average budget amount per site of $10.7k. Cleaning costs at Bruce Steer Pool are expected to be $6k for the year.
Typically, operations and maintenance costs are reduced in new buildings as a result of more efficient water use and consideration of layout and cleaning in design.
Social / Cultural
The Coastal Accessibility Plan recognises the unique coastal environment of the Bega Valley Shire is one of the greatest attractions for residents and visitors. One of the aims is to improve accessibility and to remove some of the barriers presented to those with limited mobility.
Economic
Provision of recreation facilities can be directly related to user experience. This applies to both locals and visitors. Accessible tourism is known to be a developing market. Improving facilities that also align with a developing tourism market is likely to bring economic benefits. In this instance that will be attracting those with limited mobility, and their friends and families.
Community Engagement and/or Communications
Stakeholder groups have been involved in the development of the Bruce Steer Pool Coastal Accessibility Plan. The most recent stakeholder meeting took place on site on 1 March 2017. Approximately 20 people attended including: representatives from Bermagui Surf life Saving Club; Bermagui Swimmers; Bermagui Tourist Information Centre; BVSC Access and Inclusion Committee; Bermagui Chamber of Commerce and Tourism; and Bermagui Big Game Angling Club.
The suggestion to have two amenities buildings within close proximity was raised and discussed by the group at that meeting. The consensus at the meeting was a preference for public toilets as shown on the draft Masterplan being discussed at the time (a single amenities building at the lower level).
Council subsequently received a deputation from the Bermagui Chamber of Commerce & Tourism at the meeting of 26 April 2017 and correspondence on 28 May 2017 requesting a further meeting with the Bermagui Big Game Angling Club, the Chamber and Council. Their email states:
“Following the agreement by the Council to defer removal of the toilet block at present servicing the Bruce Steer area, the Bermagui Big Game Club has contacted all the Fishing Clubs in the region (approx. 6). They have agreed that the retention of this block is of great importance to the smooth flow of vehicles around the Bruce Steer Pool parking area.”
The proposal by the Chamber to retain the current building as a seasonal facility is aligned to higher use and needs during fishing competitions. There are many events run throughout the Shire and it is difficult for Council to provide permanent facilities to cater for peak demands and use during these events. An alternative practiced by many event organisers is they make temporary arrangements to cater for peak or uncommon needs during events. Many events across the Shire work on this basis, for example traffic and parking management and use of portable public amenities.
Council officers will continue to work with the stakeholder group in the design of the amenities building in balancing inclusions, size and cost to achieve a facility that meets needs, is functional and suits the site.
Risk
The primary risk associated with the proposal to continue to use the current building as a seasonal facility, is that it does not resolve the problems with the building and it is likely to result in the expectation it will also be upgraded, adding to both Council budget capital expenditure and ongoing maintenance costs.
Options
If and when peak demand warrants additional facilities during large events, portable toilets are a simple and inexpensive alternative to retaining the existing ageing, poorly presented and non-compliant facility.
The new building will be close to the pool and the boat ramp. People can walk to use the amenities on their way to or from parking areas.
To retain continuity of service, the current public amenities building will not be decommissioned until the new building is operational.
Conclusion
The current public toilet amenities at Bruce Steer Pool are due for renewal and do not meet current standards or expectations. The Coastal Accessibility Plan has enabled consideration of current standards, changing needs and changing uses since the current building was constructed. Further multiplication of facilities in this area is not recommended noting there are alternative options to cater for peak demand during events. It is recommended a new amenities building be constructed located on the lower level of the site, to enable use by all including fishers and those that come to the site to take advantage of the calm waters and gentle grades into the water.
Attachments
1. Bermagui Chamber of Commerce and Tourism - Submission Bruce Steer public toilet amenities
|
1. That Council adopt the revised Coastal Accessibility Master Plans for Bruce Steer Pool, Bermagui. 2. That stakeholders be notified and thanked for their interest and input into the planning project. |
|
Council |
7 June 2017 |
|
Item 10.3 - Attachment 1 |
Bermagui Chamber of Commerce and Tourism - Submission Bruce Steer public toilet amenities |
Council |
7 June 2017 |
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Fitzpatrick.
12.1 Section 64 Contributions - Alternative Charging Mechanisms......................... 100
|
Council 7 June 2017 |
Item 12.1 |
12.1. Section 64 Contributions - Alternative Charging Mechanisms
At the 14 December 2016 meeting, Council resolved to receive a report on a deferral scheme for Section 64 Charges and consider alternate methods of levying such charges, including the history of payments received.
Director Transport and Utilities
Background
Council provides water supply and sewerage infrastructure and services in defined areas in its local government area. It has invested heavily to ensure water supply and sewerage assets meet the high standards needed to protect the environment and lifestyle quality of the Shire and to ensure services are structured to meet anticipated growth.
Council levies charges on development towards the cost of necessary water supply and sewerage works to serve new development (‘Developer Charges’). These charges are commonly referred to a ‘Section 64 Charges’, being a reference to Section 64 of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act).
Developer Charges are levied by the Council in accordance with adopted Development Servicing Plans (DSP) and are revised every four years.
Function of Developer Charges
Developer charges serve three related functions:
1. They provide a source of funding for infrastructure required to support growth and new development.
2. They provide cost signals regarding the price tag of urban development and thus encourage efficient forms of development and resource utilisation.
3. They are an integral part of the fair pricing of water related services.
How are Developer Charges Calculated
Developer Charges are calculated through a process outlined below:
1. Calculating capital charge per Equivalent Tenement (ET) for each service area;
2. Determining number of Developer Servicing Plans (DSPs) by grouping service areas with similar capital charges;
3. Agglomerating services areas into DSP;
4. Calculating capital charge for each DSP;
5. Determining reduction amount (User charges – Operation Maintenance and Administration); and
6. Developer charge = Capital Charge – Reduction amount.
Legal Justification
Bega Valley Shire Council imposes monetary contributions or works requirements under Section 64 of the Local Government Act (1993) and Division 5, Part 2, Chapter 6 of the Water Management Act (2000).
Water Supply and Sewerage Section 64 charges are levied where a planned development places additional load on water supply and/or sewerage systems as follows:
1. The erection, enlargement or extension of a building or the placing or relocating of a building on land;
2. The subdivision of land;
3. The change of use of land or of any building situated on the land.
When Are the Charges Payable
Under current arrangements, Section 64 Charges are payable as follows:
1. In the case of building development on a vacant allotment where the DSP charge has not been paid under a previous development application, the Section 64 charge is payable prior to release of the Construction Certificate for the building works, or where no Construction Certificate is required, prior to connection to the service;
2. For complying development, prior to the issuing of a complying Development Certificate (whether or not the Certificate is issued by Council or an accredited certifier);
3. For other development, where applicable, prior to the release of the Construction Certificate;
4. For subdivision, prior to the release of the Linen Plan.
The adopted DSPs do not make provision for the deferred payment of Developer Charges, nor for the provision of security in respect of the payment of Developer Charges.
The current payment arrangements represent low financial/cost risk to Council because the revenue comes to Council at an early stage in the development process and the background administrative processes are manageable.
Issues with Current Payment Arrangements
There are a range of issues with the present practice of levying Section 64 Developer Charges. They include:
1. Not all commercial and industrial developments are captured with Section 64 Developer Charges;
2. Entitlements paid for by developers may not belong to the developer;
3. Entitlements granted through payment of Section 64 Developer Charges are not transferable;
4. There is no effective measure to identify exceedance of entitlement;
5. Payment up front, of Section 64 Developer Charges, is anecdotally seen as a disincentive to business development.
Options Considered
A broad range of options/models were considered as part of managing this issue/concern. They include:
1. Queensland Model where developers are levied developer charges based on maximums determined by State Legislation;
2. Hunter Water/Sydney Water Model where no developer charges are levied;
3. Deferral of Section 64 Developer Charges for commercial and industrial developments within the framework of a formal Business Investment Policy;
4. Waiving or discounting Section 64 Developer Charges for commercial and industrial developments;
5. Application of Section 64 Developer Charges to real property lots, consistent with the entitlements which accrue from the payment of Section 64 Developer Charges, and not applying Section 64 Developer Charges to each development within a lot where real property lot entitlements are not exceeded;
6. Application of Section 64 Developer Charges on a usage basis as a High Consumption Charge.
Detailed Strategic Analysis
Issues with Present Practice
Not all commercial and industrial developments are captured with Developer Charges
Developer Charges are payable on all development: being Exempt Development; Complying Development; and Consent Development. Developer Charges may also be payable where a developer/business expands under an existing development approval and the load on services increases.
Although Developer Charges may be payable, because of existing legislation, there may be no trigger to identify the requirement to pay Developer Charges and hence Council does not receive the revenue due to it.
Entitlements granted through payment of Developer Charges may not belong to the developer
The practice of levying Section 64 Developer Charges is consistent with the practice of charging Section 94 Developer Contributions. Although Section 64 Developer Charges are in general paid for by the developer, any entitlement they accrue remains with the real property.
There is no legislated mechanism under which the developer can retain the entitlements if the developer is not the owner. There is no legislated mechanism under which the land owner is required to pay for the entitlements tied to the property, unless the owner is the developer or the owner agrees to pay the developer for all or some portion of the entitlements.
This means when the developer vacates the site, the entitlement for which they paid is retained by the land owner. An example of this is a hairdresser who after paying developer contributions at one site moves and has to pay further developer contributions to establish at a new site.
Entitlements granted through payment of Developer Charges are not transferable
Developer charges and the entitlements that accrue therefore are not returnable, transferable or tradable where an existing business moves to a different site.
As the entitlement that accrues from the payment of developer charges is retained by the land owner, it is not considered "legally" feasible to transfer the entitlement, as it is tied to the land and the land owner may or may not be willing to sell the entitlement.
No Effective Measure on use of Entitlement to Identify Exceedance of Entitlement
Although developments (including those within existing complexes) are required to pay Developer Charges and as such an entitlement accrues, unless the development is separately metered there is no way the use of entitlements can be monitored. For example, if a development has paid for 2 ET (which equates to approximately 450KL per year) and the development used 1000KL per year, there is no method by which this use, which is above entitlement could be identified and the matter remedied.
Further, any entitlement that had accrued by the payment of Developer Charges would be agglomerated with the ET entitlement of the property.
The Payment, Upfront, of Developer Charges is a Disincentive to Development
The payment upfront of Developer Charges is anecdotally a disincentive to industrial and commercial development in the Bega Valley Shire due to two factors:
1. Upfront charges are seen as a large cost impost on developers which they may not be able to afford when setting up or relocating a business;
2. The Shire may not be seen as competitive in attracting development as compared to say those Shires who have alternative institutional arrangements for funding of their new capital works. As an example, Shoalhaven Water currently has a concessional arrangement for developers involving a sliding scale of up to 75% reduction of the charges. In our case this argument is difficult to sustain given the practical considerations of distance from Sydney, Canberra and the Shoalhaven.
Options for Consideration
There are a range of options that can be considered. In the assessment of those options, consideration needs to be given to the extent to which Developer Charges:
1. Provide the necessary revenue for development of water and sewerage infrastructure, particularly given the absence of Government subsidy and the already high typical residential bills;
2. Act as a disincentive for development;
3. Are complex to apply and administer;
4. Are integral to Fair Pricing;
5. Capture all commercial and industrial development;
6. Are equitable to the developer, the land owner and community;
7. Can be transferred.
Queensland Model
The Queensland Department of Infrastructure Local Government and Planning reviewed the developer contribution framework in Queensland in 2013 and 2014 to introduce reforms that aimed to enhance the clarity, equity and consistency associated with the issue.
Following the review, the Department produced an 'Infrastructure Planning and Charging Framework' that aims to strike a balance between local government financial sustainability and property development feasibility. The key feature is a regulated maximum infrastructure charge.
Under the Queensland Model developers are levied developer charges/contributions based on the State Regulatory Provision. In essence a maximum adopted charge (Per Lot) is levied to part fund all infrastructure including water, sewerage, roads and stormwater. A portion of the charge is allocated to water and sewerage. Typically the portion allocated to water supply and sewerage is significantly less than that actually required to provide the infrastructure in a coastal context.
The remaining revenue required for the provision of infrastructure is raised through annual access and usage charges. As such, usage and access charges are higher for the wider community.
It should also be noted Bega Valley Shire Council's Developer Charges do not fully meet the cost of development. The shortfall is made up from revenue received through annual access and usage charges.
As assessed against the items above:
1. The Developer Charges in the Queensland model do not provide a high level of revenue for development of water and sewerage infrastructure;
3. The Developer Charges apply in only limited circumstances and hence are not complex to apply and administer;
4. The Queensland Model does not provide a price signal reflective of the cost of development and as such creates a requirement for cross subsidy. Existing users of water and sewerage services pay for portion of the costs development;
5. The Queensland Model captures development for the imposition of Developer Charges on change of land zoning and when a building is enlarged. It does not capture change of use in existing buildings;
6. The payment of Developer Charges by a developer results in an entitlement acquired by the property not the developer;
7. Entitlements are not transferable.
Sydney Water/Hunter Water Model
The Sydney Water/Hunter Water model is similar to the Queensland model with the exception that no developer charges are levied. Where possible the cost of reticulation and trunk infrastructure is a cost borne by the developer, who may construct the works or engage a contractor accredited by Sydney Water to construct the work.
Sydney Water and Hunter Water only fund major headworks and major trunk infrastructure such as water treatment plants and sewerage treatment plants. Revenue for the headworks is raised through annual access and usage charges.
As assessed against the items above:
1. There are no Developer Charges in the Sydney Water/Hunter Water model and hence there is no revenue for development of water and sewerage infrastructure;
2. Developer Charges are not imposed and so provide no disincentive to development;
3. The Developer Charges do not exist and hence are not complex to apply and administer;
4. The Sydney Water/Hunter Water Model does in part provide a price signal reflective of the cost of development, as developers provide trunk infrastructure and recoup the costs of that provision through land pricing. Existing users of water and sewerage services pay for the headworks and the major trunk infrastructure portion of the costs development;
5. The Sydney Water/Hunter Water Model captures all development through user charges. In the case of Bega Valley Shire Council this approach would result in a substantial increase in typical residential bills;
6. There is no payment of Developer Charges hence no entitlement accrues;
7. Entitlements are in effect transferable as there is no entitlement except for that which is provided by the provision of a meter of a certain size.
Deferral of the Charges
A number of Councils in NSW, either as a Policy or by Council Resolution allow for the deferral of, or the payment over a period of time, of Section 64 Developer Charges for the developers of commercial and industrial development.
Situations vary with some Councils charging interest, others not. The time period associated with the deferral of charges also varies from Council to Council and sometimes within a Council.
As an example, Tweed Shire Council has a Business Investment Policy which allows the payment over a period of up to six (6) years of Developer Charges at a nil interest rate. The Policy when applied creates a liability to Council being the cost of capital. A copy of the Tweed Shire Council Business Investment Policy is attached.
Due to the risk of non-payment, it is usual for Councils to seek a surety such as a bank guarantee to ensure Council can recover amounts due in the event of failure of the business/development.
Deferral arrangements are complex, both legally and administratively and with this in mind specific advice has been sought from Lindsay Taylor Lawyers. A copy of the advice is attached to this report and particular attention should be taken by reading from Paragraph 71 onwards, in understanding the risks associated with this option.
As assessed against the items above:
1. With the deferral of charges, subject to interest rates and surety, Council may recover a high level of revenue for the development of infrastructure but Council may incur losses if interest rates applied are low or not applied;
2. Developer Charges are still high albeit paid off over a period of time and hence the upfront cost is reduced. They remain a disincentive to investment as compared to the Sydney Water Model;
3. The deferral of charges remains complex in assessment, especially when the development is within an existing lot with other development (e.g. within a shopping centre) and is further complicated by payment plans;
4. The deferral of charges provides a price signal. Existing users of water pay only a small portion of the cost of development;
5. The deferral of charges is immaterial to the capture of development for the imposition of Developer Charges;
6. The payment of Developer Charges by a developer results in an entitlement acquired by the property not the developer;
7. Entitlements are not transferable.
Waiving or Discounting of Charges for Commercial and Industrial Development
Some Councils implement Policies for the waiving or discounting of Developer Charges. These vary widely and in the case of Bega Valley Shire, a Policy already exists associated with community infrastructure. Further, where no Policy exists Councils may, through Resolution, resolve to waive or discount Developer Charges. Both these options result in a reduction in revenue to Council.
As assessed against the items above:
1. The Developer Charges do not provide revenue or sufficient revenue for development of water and sewerage infrastructure;
2. Developer Charges would not be seen as a disincentive to investment;
3. Where Developer Charges are waived, any complexity is associated with the method of waiving. With discounting, the level of complexity would be high in the assessment, especially when the development is within an existing lot with other development (e.g. shopping centre). However, complexity would still exist if discounting were to occur;
4. Waiving or discounting does not provide a price signal reflective of the cost of development and as such creates a requirement for cross subsidy. Existing users of water and sewerage services pay for a portion or all of the cost of development;
5. The deferral of charges is immaterial in respect to the capturing of all development;
6. The waiving or discounting of Developer Charges may or may not result in an entitlement acquired by the property not the developer;
7. Entitlements, if they exist, are not transferable;
8. Potential governance and risk issues associated with perceived inconsistency of decision making.
Application of Charges on a lot basis only for Commercial and Industrial Development
The present application of Developer Charges can be complex. Each development needs to be assessed, any credits applied and Developer Charges determined. Other factors further increase complexity as follows:
1. The definition of categories and types of development means that otherwise similar developments may have different rates of Developer Charges;
2. Where a development is a change of use, existing entitlements must be determined from entitlements granted from previous Development Applications applicable to both the property and the area within the property on which the development will occur;
3. There is no method to determine if the proposed development exceeds its entitlement as it is not metered separately from the property;
These issues can be addressed by imposing Developer Charges on a property basis only and that imposition provides an entitlement to the property. How the entitlements are used within the property is managed by the property owner. As the property is metered, it can be readily determined if the property owner has exceeded its entitlement and corrective action can be taken. Further it removes the requirement of triggers to identify change of use and hence the further imposition of Developer Charges.
Administration would be simple in that each lot when developed, or Development Application when approved, would be provided with an entitlement. If meter reading showed the entitlement to be exceeded (irrespective of what has caused it to be exceeded) the property owner would be required to purchase more entitlements through payment of more Developer Charges or reduce usage to within existing entitlements.
Such a system would negate the requirement to assess any development within a presently developed property e.g. a shopping centre or commercial complex with subletting.
The system would also ensure the user pays and Council would collect sufficient Developer Charges appropriate to the utilisation of services.
Both these options may result in a reduction in revenue to Council, as a business that moves within the one property or lot will not be charged developer contributions on that move.
As assessed against the items above:
1. The Developer Charges would provide revenue for development of water and sewerage infrastructure;
2. Developer Charges would be seen as a disincentive to investment and expansion;
3. The complexity of administering Developer Charges would be greatly reduced;
4. A price signal would remain. Existing users of water only pay for portion of the cost of development as presently exists;
5. All development would be captured for the levying of Developer Charges either through the DA process or identified through higher than expected use;
6. The payment of Developer Charges by the property owner/ head lessee results in an entitlement acquired by the property;
7. Entitlements are not transferable beyond the property but are transferable within the property.
$0 Developer Contributions
Similar to the Sydney Water and Hunter Water models, Council could choose not to levy developer charges on any development including residential development. Financial calculations undertaken during past iterations of water supply and sewer financial modelling indicated this would cause a substantial rise in access and usage charges and a likely un-defendable impost on existing households.
As assessed against the items above:
1. The increased access and usage charges would provide revenue for development of water and sewerage infrastructure;
2. Developer Charges would not be seen as a disincentive to investment and expansion;
3. There would be no Developer Charges to administer;
4. There would be no price signal, particularly on unviable development. All existing and new customers of Bega Valley Shire would pay for Industrial, Commercial and Residential development;
5. All development would be captured as charges are based on access and usage;
6. No entitlement, paid for by developers exists for the property owner;
7. No entitlement exists so there is no need for transportability.
Application of Developer Charges on a Usage Basis for Commercial and Industrial Development - Implemented as a High Consumption Charge
Council could recover Developer Charges through a High Consumption Charge. The High Consumption Charge would be a charge over and above present access and usage charges. The amortised charge would be calculated by taking into consideration the following:
Developer contributions for 1 ET amortised over a period or in perpetuity divided by (230kL for water and 140kl for sewer) being the average usage of 1 ET.
Amortised over 40 years at 5% interest rate with 2.5% indexation.
Water and sewer bills would be based on an Access Charge, Usage Charge and importantly a High Consumption Charge. The system could capture all development including Complying and Exempt Development as it is based solely on usage.
The application of 40 years amortisation is based on the average life of assets. The 5% is a typical cost of capital. Indexing of charges is typically 2.5%.
On a year by year basis the High Consumption Charge could be recalculated (for everyone on the charge) using updated Developer Charges, inflation and/or equivalent increments in usage charge. The charge could be managed so that Council generates the revenue required.
As assessed against the items above:
1. The High Consumption Charge would provide revenue for development of necessary water supply and sewerage infrastructure as Section 64 Developer Charges presently do;
2. Developer Charges would not be seen as a disincentive to investment and expansion;
3. The complexity of administering Developer Charges would be greatly reduced only if charges were administered on a property basis not an individual development basis;
4. A price signal for demand management would be increased;
5. All developments would be captured as charges are based on usage;
6. The payment of a High Consumption Charge is transferable as it moves with the usage of water. Section 64 Developer Charges would no longer be a sunk cost for developers who changed premises;
7. No entitlement exists so there is no need for transportability.
Operational / Asset Management Plan
Section 64 Charges are an important income source supporting future provision of assets.
Financial and resource considerations
The income derived from Section 64 charges is substantial over the long term and accounts for approximately 20% of the funds needed for future capital works infrastructure.
To gain perspective on this issue, over the next ten years it is likely Council will need to construct up to $100million of water treatment and sewage management infrastructure depending on the availability of subsidy funding. The importance of Section 64 income is self-evident.
Risk
The impetus for change to the way Section 64 Developer Charges are levied has arisen due to financial considerations associated with impacts to development and growth. It should be recognised that both development interests and Council water and sewer programs operate on a commercial basis and there are substantial financial and administrative risks for both Council and Developers, depending on what governance arrangements are chosen.
Recommended Option
To maximise the advantages of each option detailed above, a composite option is proposed. The option is:
1. On subdivision, the developer pays for and is given an entitlement of 1 ET per lot;
2. On approval of the first development on the site, the Development Application is assessed and Section 64 Developer Charges levied. Subject to the fulfilment of conditions, a Certificate of Compliance is issued stating the new ET entitlement accorded to the lot. The ET entitlement is recorded against the lot;
3. On subsequent Development Applications the ET are assessed as they are presently assessed, but then the developer has the option of paying up front or paying the High Consumption Charge.
Where there is an existing lot that has been subject to a Development Application it is treated as Item 3 above.
This option would capture all development including Exempt and Complying Development as it is based solely on usage.
This option would augment Demand Management initiatives, as it would provide a trigger for industry and commerce to look at water consumption if they go over their ET limit.
On a year by year basis the Developer Charge is recalculated and included in Fees and Charges. With the implementation of the Amortised Charge, it would also be recalculated and included in Fees and Charges on an annual basis.
As assessed against the items above:
1. The Developer Charges would provide revenue for development of water and sewerage infrastructure;
2. Developer Charges would not be seen as a disincentive to investment and expansion and there were options available for payment;
3. The complexity of administering Developer Charges would be greatly reduced as it would be done on a property basis only;
4. A price signal for demand management would be increased;
5. All development would be captured as charges are based on usage;
6. The payment of Developer Charges is basically transferable as it moves with the usage of water;
7. No entitlement exists so there is no need for transportability.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Recommended Option
The advantages and disadvantages of the recommended option are outlined below:
Advantages:
1. It removes up front charges that may be seen as a disincentive to the establishment of business especially small business;
2. Taxation benefits to developer;
3. It is simple and easy to administer when established;
4. All development would be captured;
5. The High Consumption Charge reflects a true user charge and provides a stronger price signal for demand management;
6. The High Consumption Charge captures excess water use;
7. There is no entitlement except for those from initial development hence the developer is not paying for something which becomes an asset of the property owner;
8. When in place, Council deals with one entity only - the property owner;
9. Debt recovery action is more secure as the billings would be conducted under the LGA, as presently occurs for water and sewerage charges.
Disadvantages:
1. Property owners need to recover the High Consumption Charge from business. This is presently the case for water and sewerage charges;
2. Increased responsibility for property owners for distribution and activities within property;
3. Similar developments may have different charges apply. Developments on lots where ET entitlements exist will not be charged the High Consumption Charge. Developments where ET entitlements do not exist may be charged the High Consumption Charge. This may be seen as an inconsistency by business and property owners;
4. May create confusion for some new businesses as to what water and sewer charges may apply;
5. 12 months period to implement due to amendments required to the Authority billing system;
6. There is some initial risk for Council that the recovery of previous expenditure may slow;
7. Council will need to record/resolve ET entitlements (existing and new). This is presently done with Development Applications but needs to be developed into a Procedure;
8. Developers/Property Owners may disagree with assessment of ET entitlement. This presently occurs;
9. Billing systems will require alteration.
Conclusion
There are a range of issues with the present practice of levying Section 64 Developer Charges.
A range of options are available to address these issues and reduce the impact of the upfront payment of Section 64 Developer Charges on developers.
A number of options have been considered and a recommended option identified for consideration.
Attachments
1. Lindsay Taylor advice dated 26 November 2016 Security Arrangements for Deferred Payment of Developer Charges (Councillor Only) (Confidential)
2. Memorandum to Councillors regarding Contribution History (Councillor Only) (Confidential)
3. Tweed Shire Council Business Investment Policy
|
That the recommended Option be adopted by Council and a financial proofing report inclusive of transitional arrangements be received prior to implementation. |
Council |
7 June 2017 |
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Tapscott.
13.1 Panel Delegates and Representatives - Chairperson Traffic Committee......... 124
|
Council 7 June 2017 |
Item 13.1 |
13.1. Panel Delegates and Representatives - Chairperson Traffic Committee
Council appoints its delegates/representatives to various Committees, Panels and Associations annually following the Mayoral election. Following the resignation of the Councillor delegate and Chair of the Local Traffic Committee a new delegate and Chairperson should be selected.
General Manager
Background
Traditionally Council has appointed individual Councillors to represent Council on community committees and other organisations. In October, 2016 Council determined the delegate/s and representative/s for the period until September 2018.
On 17 May, 2017, Cr Fitzpatrick tendered his resignation from the Bega Valley Traffic Committee due to work commitments.
Accordingly Council needs to appoint a new Councillor delegate and Local Traffic Committee Chair for the period to September 2017 when all delegate positions will be reconsidered.
|
Internal or Community Committee/Panel |
Delegate Representative 2015/2016 |
Delegate Representative June 2017 to September 2017 |
|
Local Traffic Committee & Traffic Development Advisory Committee |
Cr Fitzpatrick |
|
Attachments
Nil
|
1. That Council appoint Cr (insert name) as the delegates to Local Traffic Committees until September 2017. 2. That the Traffic Committee be advised of the appointed delegate and that they be requested to forward notice of meetings and invitations, directly to the new Council appointed delegates |
|
Council |
7 June 2017 |
In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (2011), this section of the agenda will be chaired by Cr Bain.
14.1 New South Wales Treasury (TCorp) Approval of Loan Facilities...................... 126
|
Council 7 June 2017 |
Item 14.1 |
14.1. New South Wales Treasury (TCorp) Approval of Loan Facilities
To seek Council approval regarding New South Wales Treasury (TCorp) loan facility borrowing program for Bega Valley Shire Council for the Financial Year (FY)2016/2017.
Director Strategy and Business Services
Background
In 2015, NSW Councils were advised that under the Fit for the Future reform package. Councils deemed “fit” would have access to government borrowing programs through NSW Treasury Corp (TCorp). This program would offer reduced cost borrowings to Councils to support capital programs in their communities. Council borrowed $11.42m in FY2015/16 under this program.
The original Budget for FY2016/2017 had provisioned to borrow $2.1m to fund Merimbula Bypass ($0.9m) and Bega Merimbula Regional Airport Extension of Runway ($1.2m). Due to a delay in the Funding Deed Agreement by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, the project for Bega Merimbula Airport Extension was deferred to FY2017/2018 and the borrowing program was deferred accordingly.
Council requested quotations from TCorp for a loan program of $0.9m which was provided at a borrowing rate of 3.10%. This is significantly less than Council would be able to source in the wholesale market.
Issues
Financial and resource considerations
The proposed TCorp loan structure is a Credit Fonceir Loan for a Fixed Rate over a 10 year term.
Interest periods and repayment are bi-annual instalments of interest and principal of $52,680. Drawdown will occur later this financial year.
Conclusion
TCorp has requested Council to provide approval of the borrowings.
Attachments
Nil
|
1. That Council resolve to borrow $0.9m from New South Wales Treasury Corporation to be drawn down in the 2017 financial year.
|
|
Council |
7 June 2017 |
Councillor Reports
07 June 2017
16.1 Cr Seckold - ALGWA NSW Annual Conference 2017 ....................................... 128
16.2 Statement by Councillor.................................................................................... 131
|
Council 7 June 2017 |
Item 16.1 |
16.1. Cr Seckold - ALGWA NSW Annual Conference 2017
The Australian Local Government Women's Association NSW (ALGWA NSW) Annual Conference was held 4 – 6 May 2017 in Penrith NSW.
Cr Seckold, Deputy Mayor
ALGWA NSW Annual Conference 2017
Host of the ALGWA NSW Annual Conference Cr John Thain Mayor of Penrith, known as the Adventure Capital of NSW welcomed Councillors and staff at the Penrith Regional Gallery. He encouraged us to enjoy the workshops with the theme “Your adventure starts now!”.
Gender equality and helping women in local government is a priority of the Penrith Council, guided by its 2010 Gender Equity Action Plan.
Cr Vicki Scott, ALGWA NSW President welcomed everyone and reminded us NSW has the lowest representation of female Councillors in Australia. Cr Marianne Saliba, Mayor of Shellharbour, was elected to succeed Vicki as President of ALGWA.
Keynote speakers
Robbi Mack, Heartbeatz
Robbi Mack was also the effervescent Master of Ceremonies. Her life had been difficult and as a result she set up Heartbeatz. It is imperative to build resilience – the ability to recover readily from challenges and adversity. By 2020 the number one health issue will be anxiety and depression due to our 21st Century living. Living a lifetime of depression is like “living in wet cement”. To build resilience we need courage and use fear as a companion. Laughter is essential, acceptance of the here and now, valuing yourself as an unique person by asking for help, all these strategies also help to bolster resilience
Shannon Hall, Domestic Violence Documentation Counsellor, Penrith Integrated Violence Prevention and Response Services, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District
One in three women experience domestic violence. Penrith is ranked second to Blacktown. Domestic violence is particularly high after Christmas. The support of Nepean Domestic Violence Network has focussed Penrith’s key priorities in the community:
· Community development activities (Reclaim the Night March and White Ribbon Day);
· Print material – posters behind toilet doors, bookmarks in libraries, Help Card (for wallet and handbag);
· Training for childcare workers;
· Domestic Violence forums – politicians invited;
· Love Bytes – funded by Club Grants;
· Facebook and website;
· An information stand at Westfield Plaza.
Shannon delivers crisis domestic violence counselling (first in the state), works in collaboration with forensics, and gathers evidence for legal protection. She sees the need for implementing domestic violence response and the need to shift culture.
Heather Chaffey, Neighbourhood Renewal Co-ordinator, Penrith City Council
Heather won the Marjorie Propsting Award which paid for a Sydney Leadership Course. Leadership is a practice, Authority is more than position.
Kim–Cherie Davidson, Adventure Coach, Live Your Bucket List
Kim-Cherie invited the audience to rid themselves of Dream Stoppers like: I’m too young/old; health; fitness; time. Instead to set goals, dreams and adventures… small steps at a time.
Other keynote speakers were MsTracey Leahy, Community Programs Co-ordinator, Penrith City Council.
From the ALGWA NSW Newsletter - Rosie Batty
As a nation we need to reassess our priorities. Let’s start calling family violence “terrorism” and then maybe we will start to see that investment in funding applied to where it needs to be.
Conference discussion panel – Women in Leadership
Hania Radvan, Chief Executive Officer, Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd
Prue Car MP, Member for Londonderry
Emma Husar MP, Member for Lindsay
These three spoke about innate qualities of women who tend to contribute to the bigger picture and build capacity. It’s important to believe in yourself (confidence) and surround yourself with people who believe in you.
Workshops
Simonne Johnston, Manager, Local Government Strategy and Business Improvement, UTS Institute for Public Policy and Governance
The state of women in Local Government in Australia:
· Represent 46% workforce;
· in Local Government higher educational attainments than males;
· 30% female Councillors;
· 5% General Managers;
· 20% Senior Management;
· Engineering 90% males;
· 20% have administrators.
Women are seen as more transformative, communicate better with the community, focus on human rights and wellbeing, more inclusive, more ethical.
When a male Mayor was asked why women were not in Senior Management he replied “Women care too much. Men make it up as they go along and when there is a stuff-up, blame someone else.”
Sally Mullinger, Acting Director Operations, Mid-Western Regional Council
Sally is a chartered Civil Engineer from the UK. To be successful in a man’s world you must be passionate and believe in yourself. It is the job not the gender.
ALGWA National President, Cr Coral Ross spoke about the tremendous support ALGWA had given to women since 1951.
A highlight of our visit was Friday evening’s performance of Chicago in the Joan Sutherland Performing Arts Centre.
Attachments
Nil
|
Council 7 June 2017 |
Item 16.2 |
Opportunity for any official statements by Councillors
General Manager
Attachments
Nil
|
Council |
7 June 2017 |
Notices of Motion
07 June 2017
18.1 Alteration Motion Bermagui Spiire Masterplan............................................... 133
|
Council 7 June 2017 |
Item 18.1 |
Over the period since 2011/12 Council developed a number of Masterplans for the Merimbula, Eden, Bega and Bermagui townships. There has been considerable concern and debate in the Bermagui community in relation to the Bermagui Masterplan.
The Central Business District (CBD) Master Plans were formally adopted unanimously by Council on 4 February 2015.
The Resolution was:
RESOLVED on the motion of Crs Hughes and Seckold
1. That Council adopts the draft CBD landscape masterplans for Merimbula, Bega and Bermagui and that these masterplans form the basis for the future enhancement of the three towns.
In favour: Crs Taylor, Britten, McBain, Hughes, Tapscott, Seckold, Mawhinney, Allen and Fitzpatrick
Against: Nil
On 1 February 2017 following a Notice of Motion by Cr Nadin Council Resolved:
That Council consider an allocation of funding in the draft 2017/18 budget development to include going to expressions of interest for detailed design building on the current CBD masterplan and to establish detailed working plans, including traffic and parking plans, in consultation with the respective communities for Merimbula and Bermagui CBDs.
That strategic project planning of the detailed designs take into consideration, in consultation with key community stakeholders, budget development, including quantity surveying, so that Council can plan for full costs, and work can be staged when funding becomes available.
In favour: Crs Fitzpatrick, Bain, Nadin, Griff, McBain, Seckold and Tapscott
Against: Cr Allen
Absent: Cr Dodds
In order to work towards the best outcome for the Bermagui community, the most appropriate process would be to alter the above two Motions to move to a new approach for Bermagui. This would allow Council and the community to move to develop concept and detailed design plans at a time when funding is made available to undertake the work in the area.
Cr Kristy McBain
Nil
